Dialogue Volume 11 Issue 4 2015 | Página 77

discipline summaries tions after December 31, 2011. Dr. Saul’s professional misconduct in breaching his undertaking has implications for patient care and professional governance. In the Committee’s view, any breach of an undertaking is a serious matter. In this case, breaching the undertaking was repeated many times and in different ways. As the professional regulator, the College relies on the honesty and integrity of its members. It is the obligation of members to comply with orders of the College Committees and undertakings made to the College. A failure to comply undermines effective self-governance in the public interest. The Committee, in its reprimand, paid particular attention to the importance of the members of the College complying with orders and undertakings. The suspension of a certificate of registration is a serious consequence. A two-month suspension in this matter is justified. This serves to denounce the misconduct and serves as both a specific deterrent to Dr. Saul and a general deterrent to the profession. The terms of the order effectively prohibit Dr. Saul from all practice related to cannabis (medical marihuana), whether this relates to signing medical documents, counselling, assessment or treatment of patients, prescribing, dispensing or administration. As a consequence, the Committee is satisfied that the public will be protected under the jointly proposed order. It was made clear to the Committee by counsel for both parties that the other terms of the undertaking signed by Dr. Saul are not affected by this Order and remain in force. The Committee notes that this involves, but is not limited to, a resignation of prescribing privileges for certain classes of drugs. While this did not form part of the allegations in the matter before us, the Committee was comforted that this has been clearly addressed by the parties with Dr. Saul in attendance. This too offers a measure of public protection. The Committee is of the view that for Dr. Saul to be successfully rehabilitated, professional ethics need to be addressed. This may be achieved through the requirement in the penalty order that Dr. Saul complete an educational program in ethics. In addition, the Committee is satisfied that the Order addresses the necessary components for moni- toring Dr. Saul’s future behaviour. A practice reassessment will ensure that good practice habits are not only acquired but sustained. Both of these measures are necessary and support the object of public protection. The Committee accepted that Dr. Saul’s cooperation in the events leading up to this hearing was a mitigating factor. It was also a mitigating factor that Dr. Saul had no disciplinary history with the College. Nevertheless, public protection is the overriding factor in this case and is given most weight by the Committee. Payment to the College of $4,460 in costs within 30 days has been agreed to by the parties. Order The Committee ordered and directed on the matter of penalty and costs that: 1. Dr. Saul appear before the panel to be reprimanded. 2. The Registrar suspend Dr. Saul’s certificate of registration for a period of two months commencing on November 1, 2014. 3. The Registrar impose the following terms, conditions and limitations on Dr. Saul’s certificate of registration: a) Dr. Saul shall, at his own expense, participate in and successfully complete an educational program satisfactory to the College in Ethics, with a report or reports to be provided to the College regarding Dr. Saul’s progress and compliance. Dr. Saul shall complete this requirement by April 1, 2015 or, if no satisfactory program is available by that time, by the first possible opportunity thereafter; b) Effective immediately, Dr. Saul shall be prohibited from all practice in relation to Cannabis, as defined by Schedule II to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (S.C. 1996, c. 19) (“Cannabis”), including, without in any way limiting the generality of this restriction, i.  The prescription, dispensing or administration of cannabis; ii. Signing medical documents pursuant to the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations, SOR/2013-119 or any equivalent Issue 4, 2015 Dialogue Issue4_15.indd 77 77 2015-12-16 9:36 AM